Hunter’s Mark is still useful to a ranger. For tracking. If you opt for the core favored enemy feature you will need hunter’s mark to aid in tracking creatures that aren’t a favored enemy. If you (are allowed to) choose the favored foe variant feature you’ll need hunters mark to gain a benefit to track ANY creature. Even the UA variant only allowed hunter’s mark free castings at base level, which was very nice, but didn’t allow the 8 or 24 hour upcast option.
It's okay, bordering on underwhelming. The only thing it has on hunter's mark is it doesn't use a bonus action (big whoop) and it doesn't cost a spell slot (more significant, but still underwhelming considering it's other limitations). If it dropped at least one of it's limitations -concentration, single target, one hit per turn- then I'd say it makes a better competitor, but as it is, the only thing it really has going for it is the fact that favored enemy is so bad by comparison.
I actually think it does the opposite, I think it makes Favored Enemy look good by comparison. Do I take an option that is situational but cost nothing to use and gives advantage when you do use it or do I take something that requires my concentration and does less damage than Hunter’s Mark, the only “benefit” that it didn’t take a spell slot that every ranger uses to cast Hunter’s Mark anyway.
It's okay, bordering on underwhelming. The only thing it has on hunter's mark is it doesn't use a bonus action (big whoop) and it doesn't cost a spell slot (more significant, but still underwhelming considering it's other limitations). If it dropped at least one of it's limitations -concentration, single target, one hit per turn- then I'd say it makes a better competitor, but as it is, the only thing it really has going for it is the fact that favored enemy is so bad by comparison.
I actually think it does the opposite, I think it makes Favored Enemy look good by comparison. Do I take an option that is situational but cost nothing to use and gives advantage when you do use it or do I take something that requires my concentration and does less damage than Hunter’s Mark, the only “benefit” that it didn’t take a spell slot that every ranger uses to cast Hunter’s Mark anyway.
And that, I think, is the point. It's supposed to feel like a choice.
It's okay, bordering on underwhelming. The only thing it has on hunter's mark is it doesn't use a bonus action (big whoop) and it doesn't cost a spell slot (more significant, but still underwhelming considering it's other limitations). If it dropped at least one of it's limitations -concentration, single target, one hit per turn- then I'd say it makes a better competitor, but as it is, the only thing it really has going for it is the fact that favored enemy is so bad by comparison.
I actually think it does the opposite, I think it makes Favored Enemy look good by comparison. Do I take an option that is situational but cost nothing to use and gives advantage when you do use it or do I take something that requires my concentration and does less damage than Hunter’s Mark, the only “benefit” that it didn’t take a spell slot that every ranger uses to cast Hunter’s Mark anyway.
And that, I think, is the point. It's supposed to feel like a choice.
That’s probably a good explanation of why tweak it, but for me and many based on the comments, it isn’t a choice because the new version is so weak, that I don’t have to mull over which I am going to take, I am simply going to keep Favored Enemy
If I was playing a ranger at a table with a game style, with a particular DM, or in a particular campaign, that truly did not use exploration much or at all, as many or most people do, according to the most vocal critics of the class, I would take the TCoE variants in an instant. They both offer abilities that work very well for combat encounter driven game play. If I played, as I often do because that’s what I enjoy, in an exploration focused, answer seeking game, I would keep the original two abilities of the ranger class.
It's okay, bordering on underwhelming. The only thing it has on hunter's mark is it doesn't use a bonus action (big whoop) and it doesn't cost a spell slot (more significant, but still underwhelming considering it's other limitations). If it dropped at least one of it's limitations -concentration, single target, one hit per turn- then I'd say it makes a better competitor, but as it is, the only thing it really has going for it is the fact that favored enemy is so bad by comparison.
I actually think it does the opposite, I think it makes Favored Enemy look good by comparison. Do I take an option that is situational but cost nothing to use and gives advantage when you do use it or do I take something that requires my concentration and does less damage than Hunter’s Mark, the only “benefit” that it didn’t take a spell slot that every ranger uses to cast Hunter’s Mark anyway.
And that, I think, is the point. It's supposed to feel like a choice.
That seems fair... it still seems frustrating that they could have solved two problems at once (Hunter's Mark reliance and crap lvl1 features) and instead they chose to halfway solve one. I know personally I'll always go Favored Foe because I don't think I've tracked an enemy at any point, ever, since 5e came out.
It's okay, bordering on underwhelming. The only thing it has on hunter's mark is it doesn't use a bonus action (big whoop) and it doesn't cost a spell slot (more significant, but still underwhelming considering it's other limitations). If it dropped at least one of it's limitations -concentration, single target, one hit per turn- then I'd say it makes a better competitor, but as it is, the only thing it really has going for it is the fact that favored enemy is so bad by comparison.
I actually think it does the opposite, I think it makes Favored Enemy look good by comparison. Do I take an option that is situational but cost nothing to use and gives advantage when you do use it or do I take something that requires my concentration and does less damage than Hunter’s Mark, the only “benefit” that it didn’t take a spell slot that every ranger uses to cast Hunter’s Mark anyway.
And that, I think, is the point. It's supposed to feel like a choice.
That seems fair... it still seems frustrating that they could have solved two problems at once (Hunter's Mark reliance and crap lvl1 features) and instead they chose to halfway solve one. I know personally I'll always go Favored Foe because I don't think I've tracked an enemy at any point, ever, since 5e came out.
Those two first-level features are only crap if you don't use them. The PHB ranger is not designed to be some kick-in-the-door adventurer. They are best suited for stalking targets, gathering information, and laying traps. If that's not the style of play you enjoy, or the style your table even uses, then it's going to disappoint you.
I agree they butchered a good fix to Rangers with Tasha's version of Favored Foe. If they were concerned with multiclassing balance, a simple fix would be:
Keep the level 1 Favored Foe as is from UA, but have it require concentration. At level 6, when the PHB ranger gets an improvement to Favored Enemy, instead remove the concentration required for Favored Foe.
My guess is that because it's free damage, doesn't require a bonus action or anything, it'll still be useful. Is hunters mark better? Yes, but that's a spell slot and a bonus action. A beast master will likely not use it very often anymore because it creates bonus action economy issues with the new pet. Either way, even if this ability is a bit lackluster the variant ranger overall is pretty great.
My guess is that because it's free damage, doesn't require a bonus action or anything, it'll still be useful. Is hunters mark better? Yes, but that's a spell slot and a bonus action. A beast master will likely not use it very often anymore because it creates bonus action economy issues with the new pet. Either way, even if this ability is a bit lackluster the variant ranger overall is pretty great.
The beast master wasn't that likely to use it in the first place. The usefulness of Hunter's Mark goes up the more attacks they make. And outside of levels 7-10 (Exceptional Training), they're better off ordering the beast companion to attack.
And if there was any competition with the bonus action, they can always cast during turn 1 and use their BA for something else on turn 2. Dealing damage doesn't have to be 100% all the time.
My guess is that because it's free damage, doesn't require a bonus action or anything, it'll still be useful. Is hunters mark better? Yes, but that's a spell slot and a bonus action. A beast master will likely not use it very often anymore because it creates bonus action economy issues with the new pet. Either way, even if this ability is a bit lackluster the variant ranger overall is pretty great.
That's the problem (highlighted by me). It does require something. The same thing we need for several other fun things. It's called concentration. Without that requirement it would be a much more interesting feature. For everyone who cries about stacking issues now, I don't think it would create a particularly big problem to have it stack with anything, really. It's still only once per turn with an extremely limited amount of charges per day.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I've never encountered a forum where I got this many "talking to a wall" impressions as this one...
I agree. The leak info I saw only had a sentence or two describing the feature so until we see the final product I'll hold judgement.
What I meant by "or anything" was referring to action economy. Because of that, it can be used with things like crossbow expert, beast master pet, two weapon fighting, and whatever else that uses a bonus action. If it does take concentration I think it will be a mistake but the feature will still have it's uses. Trouble is that with finite uses you'll want to use it on something important but because there are better options with concentration, you probably won't use it on the BBG. You'll just use it on important trash which seems like poor design.
Agreed. The real issue is the Concentration. I get it, they don’t want it o be able to stack certain effects (which is what concentration exists to prevent), but when an entire class has all of their best tricks locked up behind that one gate, it’s very... frustrating.
Like trying to play through the story of an RTS on hard mode, on a console when there is no way to quickly flit around the map. You’re there tryin’a push that joystick through the plastic housing to move the camera faster because you need to command forces all over the map. Meanwhile the computer just keeps going at computer speed. You’re sitting there, absolutely aware that if you were on a PC with a mouse you could have circumnavigated the map a dozen times already, but there you are, still holding that joystick to pan west, and watching all the little red dots on the minimal multiply, and hearing that same stupid orc yelling “We’re under attack!!” from every base you have.... 🤬
That’s really the issue with it. Every other class (except Warlocks) has ways around the issue. Heck, even Sorcerer players aren’t constantly faced with one-at-a-time-itis like generic villains in a Kung Fu movie. Rangers just kinda feel like they suffer from some of the same problems as the Eldritch Knight in that regard. But instead of a single subclass that can still work really with some creativity and careful planning and still has Action Surge, it’s an entire Class that feels this way.
I think the biggest problem is that they didn’t really have a cohesive plan when they designed 5e, and if they had they could have done better. For example, Hunters have Colossus Slayer, and Monster Hunters have Slayer’s Prey. They don’t really need Hunter’s Mark the same way the others do, but they can still take Hunters Mark and those things stack. So with the UA’s Favored Foe granting Hunter’s Mark without requiring Concentration, it only further highlighted the intraclass balance issue with Rangers. If they had a clearer idea of what stuff and how much a class would grant for a character, and what stuff each of its subclasses would play (and if they had stuck to that plan), the whole thing would be more cohesive. But it feels like instead, every subclass was developed in a vacuum, entirely agnostic of the other subclasses.
So, IMO, either Hunter’s Mark should have been a base class feature and none of the subclasses should have gotten other features that could stack, or it should not exist at all and every subclass should have its own version of something similar and more suited to its theme. Instead the wanted to give every player a choice whether they want to use it, so they made it a spell. (Because “just make it a spell(s)” seems to be Crawford’s favorite way to handle anything he can’t actually figure out. 🙄) But, because of what it does and how good it is, it necessitates Concentration. Which brings us full circle back to the problem.
This could have all been made simpler if there was a simple rule in the PHB such as this: (or something similar at least)
Marking a Creature
Many spells and class abilities allow you to mystically mark a creature, each mark granting different effects. These mystical marks are invisible, and can only be detected by you, or through the use of the Detect Magic spell. If Identify is cast on a marked creature, the spell reveals the nature of the mark. You can only mark one creature at a time. If you have marked a creature with a spell or ability, and then mark a different creature with a spell or ability, the first mark immediately fades.
That rule could cover Hunter’s Mark and Hex, but also Slayer’s Prey, Hexblade’s Curse, the Cavalier’s Unwavering Mark, and anything the heck else the wished to come up with for any class or subclass. If they specifically wanted something to not fall under that rule, like say Hexblade’s Curse for example, then call it a “Curse” and not a “Mark” and voila. That would have been a better “non-lazy” way to future proof such features IMO.
EDIT: Sorry, I think I had the same lack of planing as WotC when I wrote this rant, hopefully it made some sense.
That said, the UA version with concentration free hunters mark was probably OP.
Yeah the UA version was definitely stronger than it needed to be; removing concentration opened it up to all kinds of abuse (e.g- take Magic Initiate Warlock and stack it with Hex for +2d6 damage per attack). All we really need is the ability to activate a damage buff a few times for free and it mostly solves the concentration juggling problem. Being able to change targets without waiting for one to drop to 0 HP was nice too, but not really needed when you can just re-cast.
This new feature generally still "solves" the issue as long as we get a decent number of free uses, it just means that if you expect to cast other concentration spells then instead of casting Hunter's Mark for damage you'd want to use Favoured Foe instead (if you took it). Someone who intends to rely on Hunter's Mark for damage probably won't need this and might just stick with Favoured Enemy.
Essentially it does what it needs to do for the types of Ranger builds that need it, e.g- those who want to use Lightning Arrow instead of Conjure Barrage as their main AoE spell, for those builds that don't have much of a problem with concentration juggling it might still be nice to have; Beast Masters for example might use it instead of Hunter's Mark, freeing up a spell choice (and spell slots) for other things.
Fantasy Grounds accidentally set the incorrect purchase date for the book and it went live weeks ahead of schedule. Someone ripped it before they could take it down. (One expects WotC to sue the living bejesus out of them.)
Hunter’s Mark is still useful to a ranger. For tracking. If you opt for the core favored enemy feature you will need hunter’s mark to aid in tracking creatures that aren’t a favored enemy. If you (are allowed to) choose the favored foe variant feature you’ll need hunters mark to gain a benefit to track ANY creature. Even the UA variant only allowed hunter’s mark free castings at base level, which was very nice, but didn’t allow the 8 or 24 hour upcast option.
I actually think it does the opposite, I think it makes Favored Enemy look good by comparison. Do I take an option that is situational but cost nothing to use and gives advantage when you do use it or do I take something that requires my concentration and does less damage than Hunter’s Mark, the only “benefit” that it didn’t take a spell slot that every ranger uses to cast Hunter’s Mark anyway.
And that, I think, is the point. It's supposed to feel like a choice.
That’s probably a good explanation of why tweak it, but for me and many based on the comments, it isn’t a choice because the new version is so weak, that I don’t have to mull over which I am going to take, I am simply going to keep Favored Enemy
If I was playing a ranger at a table with a game style, with a particular DM, or in a particular campaign, that truly did not use exploration much or at all, as many or most people do, according to the most vocal critics of the class, I would take the TCoE variants in an instant. They both offer abilities that work very well for combat encounter driven game play. If I played, as I often do because that’s what I enjoy, in an exploration focused, answer seeking game, I would keep the original two abilities of the ranger class.
That seems fair... it still seems frustrating that they could have solved two problems at once (Hunter's Mark reliance and crap lvl1 features) and instead they chose to halfway solve one. I know personally I'll always go Favored Foe because I don't think I've tracked an enemy at any point, ever, since 5e came out.
Those two first-level features are only crap if you don't use them. The PHB ranger is not designed to be some kick-in-the-door adventurer. They are best suited for stalking targets, gathering information, and laying traps. If that's not the style of play you enjoy, or the style your table even uses, then it's going to disappoint you.
I agree they butchered a good fix to Rangers with Tasha's version of Favored Foe. If they were concerned with multiclassing balance, a simple fix would be:
Keep the level 1 Favored Foe as is from UA, but have it require concentration. At level 6, when the PHB ranger gets an improvement to Favored Enemy, instead remove the concentration required for Favored Foe.
My high elf wizard with an 8 strength is a terrible frontline fighter for some reason. Bad at disarming traps too. And like ZERO healing spells!!!
My guess is that because it's free damage, doesn't require a bonus action or anything, it'll still be useful. Is hunters mark better? Yes, but that's a spell slot and a bonus action. A beast master will likely not use it very often anymore because it creates bonus action economy issues with the new pet. Either way, even if this ability is a bit lackluster the variant ranger overall is pretty great.
The beast master wasn't that likely to use it in the first place. The usefulness of Hunter's Mark goes up the more attacks they make. And outside of levels 7-10 (Exceptional Training), they're better off ordering the beast companion to attack.
And if there was any competition with the bonus action, they can always cast during turn 1 and use their BA for something else on turn 2. Dealing damage doesn't have to be 100% all the time.
That's the problem (highlighted by me). It does require something. The same thing we need for several other fun things. It's called concentration. Without that requirement it would be a much more interesting feature. For everyone who cries about stacking issues now, I don't think it would create a particularly big problem to have it stack with anything, really. It's still only once per turn with an extremely limited amount of charges per day.
I've never encountered a forum where I got this many "talking to a wall" impressions as this one...
I agree. The leak info I saw only had a sentence or two describing the feature so until we see the final product I'll hold judgement.
What I meant by "or anything" was referring to action economy. Because of that, it can be used with things like crossbow expert, beast master pet, two weapon fighting, and whatever else that uses a bonus action. If it does take concentration I think it will be a mistake but the feature will still have it's uses. Trouble is that with finite uses you'll want to use it on something important but because there are better options with concentration, you probably won't use it on the BBG. You'll just use it on important trash which seems like poor design.
That said, the UA version with concentration free hunters mark was probably OP.
I posted the whole thing on the first page in this very thread already.
I've never encountered a forum where I got this many "talking to a wall" impressions as this one...
Agreed. The real issue is the Concentration. I get it, they don’t want it o be able to stack certain effects (which is what concentration exists to prevent), but when an entire class has all of their best tricks locked up behind that one gate, it’s very... frustrating.
Like trying to play through the story of an RTS on hard mode, on a console when there is no way to quickly flit around the map. You’re there tryin’a push that joystick through the plastic housing to move the camera faster because you need to command forces all over the map. Meanwhile the computer just keeps going at computer speed. You’re sitting there, absolutely aware that if you were on a PC with a mouse you could have circumnavigated the map a dozen times already, but there you are, still holding that joystick to pan west, and watching all the little red dots on the minimal multiply, and hearing that same stupid orc yelling “We’re under attack!!” from every base you have.... 🤬
That’s really the issue with it. Every other class (except Warlocks) has ways around the issue. Heck, even Sorcerer players aren’t constantly faced with one-at-a-time-itis like generic villains in a Kung Fu movie. Rangers just kinda feel like they suffer from some of the same problems as the Eldritch Knight in that regard. But instead of a single subclass that can still work really with some creativity and careful planning and still has Action Surge, it’s an entire Class that feels this way.
I think the biggest problem is that they didn’t really have a cohesive plan when they designed 5e, and if they had they could have done better. For example, Hunters have Colossus Slayer, and Monster Hunters have Slayer’s Prey. They don’t really need Hunter’s Mark the same way the others do, but they can still take Hunters Mark and those things stack. So with the UA’s Favored Foe granting Hunter’s Mark without requiring Concentration, it only further highlighted the intraclass balance issue with Rangers. If they had a clearer idea of what stuff and how much a class would grant for a character, and what stuff each of its subclasses would play (and if they had stuck to that plan), the whole thing would be more cohesive. But it feels like instead, every subclass was developed in a vacuum, entirely agnostic of the other subclasses.
So, IMO, either Hunter’s Mark should have been a base class feature and none of the subclasses should have gotten other features that could stack, or it should not exist at all and every subclass should have its own version of something similar and more suited to its theme. Instead the wanted to give every player a choice whether they want to use it, so they made it a spell. (Because “just make it a spell(s)” seems to be Crawford’s favorite way to handle anything he can’t actually figure out. 🙄) But, because of what it does and how good it is, it necessitates Concentration. Which brings us full circle back to the problem.
This could have all been made simpler if there was a simple rule in the PHB such as this: (or something similar at least)
That rule could cover Hunter’s Mark and Hex, but also Slayer’s Prey, Hexblade’s Curse, the Cavalier’s Unwavering Mark, and anything the heck else the wished to come up with for any class or subclass. If they specifically wanted something to not fall under that rule, like say Hexblade’s Curse for example, then call it a “Curse” and not a “Mark” and voila. That would have been a better “non-lazy” way to future proof such features IMO.
EDIT: Sorry, I think I had the same lack of planing as WotC when I wrote this rant, hopefully it made some sense.
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Epic Boons on DDB
Yeah the UA version was definitely stronger than it needed to be; removing concentration opened it up to all kinds of abuse (e.g- take Magic Initiate Warlock and stack it with Hex for +2d6 damage per attack). All we really need is the ability to activate a damage buff a few times for free and it mostly solves the concentration juggling problem. Being able to change targets without waiting for one to drop to 0 HP was nice too, but not really needed when you can just re-cast.
This new feature generally still "solves" the issue as long as we get a decent number of free uses, it just means that if you expect to cast other concentration spells then instead of casting Hunter's Mark for damage you'd want to use Favoured Foe instead (if you took it). Someone who intends to rely on Hunter's Mark for damage probably won't need this and might just stick with Favoured Enemy.
Essentially it does what it needs to do for the types of Ranger builds that need it, e.g- those who want to use Lightning Arrow instead of Conjure Barrage as their main AoE spell, for those builds that don't have much of a problem with concentration juggling it might still be nice to have; Beast Masters for example might use it instead of Hunter's Mark, freeing up a spell choice (and spell slots) for other things.
Characters: Bullette, Chortle, Dracarys Noir, Edward Merryspell, Habard Ashery, Legion, Peregrine
My Homebrew: Feats | Items | Monsters | Spells | Subclasses | Races
Guides: Creating Sub-Races Using Trait Options
WIP (feedback needed): Blood Mage, Chromatic Sorcerers, Summoner, Trickster Domain, Unlucky, Way of the Daoist (Drunken Master), Weapon Smith
Please don't reply to my posts unless you've read what they actually say.
Are the leaks everyone has anything more than something someone has unofficially just typed out? I mean, what is the reference for this leak?
Fantasy Grounds accidentally set the incorrect purchase date for the book and it went live weeks ahead of schedule. Someone ripped it before they could take it down. (One expects WotC to sue the living bejesus out of them.)
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Epic Boons on DDB
Have we seen that though? Or are just reading what someone on the internet said they saw?